Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn LLP v. Munao, 270 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2000)
NY Underlying business transaction
Student Contributor: Melissa Goldberg
Facts: In April 1991, Plaintiff allegedly gave Defendants negligent advice that they could shelter income through a certain joint venture. Plaintiff filed a summons with notice in October 1996, and served a complaint in December 1996, to which Defendants responded, in January 1997, with an answer containing counterclaims alleging the negligent advice. October 8, 1996 therefore marks the timeliness of the claims.
Issue: Which Statute of Limitations applied to this cause of action?
Result: Claims subject to six-year statute of limitations. The newly enacted three years statute does not bar it.
“While amended CPLR 214 (6), which reduced what would have been a six-year Statute of Limitations in this case to three years, applies to claims, such as these, interposed after its effective date of September 4, 1996, due process requires that such claims be entertained if brought within a reasonable time after September 4, 1996–clearly the case here, where the claims were presumably interposed only one month, and actually interposed only four months, after September 4, 1996.”
Lesson: The Statute of Limitations in New York is now three years.
Tagged with: New York, NY CPLR 214 (6), Statute of Limitations
Posted in: New York, Statute of Limitations